The science of anatomy and physiology shows clearly that vertebrate evolution is impossible. To explain the origin of the vertebrate cardiovascular system from an invertebrate, the basic requirements need to be specified. These include:

1. A complex closed network of vessels for transporting blood to the body cells.2. A pumping mechanism (heart) with valves for transporting oxygen-rich blood in a one-way direction throughout the body.3. A system for exchanging oxygen and carbon-dioxide (lungs/gills) functioning with the cardiovascular system.4. A filtration (renal) system to maintain acid/base and electrolyte balance and to eliminate excess water.5. Blood cells and plasma proteins.

No evolutionary explanation exists as to how the single circulation cardiovascular system found in fish supposedly evolved. Also, no evolutionary explanation exists as to how the single circulation CV system of fish supposedly evolved into the double circulation CV system found in amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. The science of anatomy and physiology shows that vertebrate life is a top-down design, not a bottom-up design as evolutionists claim.

Note: Christine Janis has made a futile attempt to refute what I have written above. She has failed to explain the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system. Here is a summary why this attempt has failed:

1. She now claims that she is only describing ‘anatomy’ and is not describing the evolutionary origin of the CV system because I would not understand it. Of course the real reason why no evolutionary explanations for the CV system are provided is because none exist. 2. Doesn’t even understand how the CV system functions. Claims that the heart evolved in this sequence: myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction. The heart won’t function without cardiac conduction, so the vertebrate would be dead.3. Begins with a lancelet, which has a functioning circulatory system with pulsing arteries. No explanation of how this animal supposedly evolved is provided. The most crucial explanation required is how blood is pumped via a closed system of blood vessels to meet the metabolic needs of stationary body cells. Janis fails to provide any explanation at all.4. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.5. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.6. Claims that because a single celled zygote can develop into a multicellular organism, it should therefore be possible for bacteria to evolve into multicellular life over time. The analogy is false and is not supported by genetics.7. Ignores pathophysiology and seems to be oblivious to the adverse effects of abnormalities to structural and functional changes to body systems and organs.8. Fails completely to take into account the overall complexity of the CV system.9. Always evades providing any explanation when confronted with the details of the anatomical structure of the CV system. Waves the magic evolutionary wand repeatedly to evolve body systems.10. Repeatedly cuts and pastes from articles (that explain the evolutionary origin of nothing) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that she cannot even attempt to provide evolutionary explanations for the detailed functioning of the CV system. 11. Claims that both anatomical CV similarities and anatomical CV differences are evidence for evolution. So any similarities or differences in CV systems (all possibilities) are used to support evolution, which means it cannot be falsified. For example, the claim is made that because human embryos have six aortic arches and fish also have six aortic arches, this indicates common ancestry. However fish and humans have vastly different body structures, yet evolutionists claim they are related. So both similarities and differences are used to support evolutionary theory. No doubt if humans had five, seven, or any other number of aortic arches then this would be used to support evolutionary theory also. The argument is meaningless.12. It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV or respiratory systems.13. States that hagfish have no sympathetic or parasympathetic innervation of the heart and tries to use this as an excuse for not having to explain how the sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation of the human heart supposedly evolved.14. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of the closed system of coronary blood vessels is provided. Each coronary artery and vein in humans has three layers – tunica adventitia, tunica media and tunica intima, in addition to neural innervation of these vessels for vasodialation. It is claimed that coronary vessels evolved four separate times, which makes this evolutionary scenario orders of magnitude even more absurd.15. Fails to provide any explanation of the regulation of blood pressure, and the regulation of haemoglobin levels with erythropoietin and its negative feedback system.16. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes (red blood cells) required for the CV system in vertebrates is provided. Janis fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for erythrocytes by mentioning that lampreys and hagfishes have red blood cells without a skeletal system. The fact remains that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes for the CV system in vertebrates or invertebrates.17. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the renal system, which is used to filter blood for the CV system. This includes the mesonephric kidney of fish and amphibians and the metanephric kidney of reptiles, birds and mammals.18. Fails to explain the origin of the respiratory system, which is used for oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange for the CV system. The human diaphragm which is used for respiration is innervated by spinal nerves C3 – C5 and the external and internal intercostals are innervated by the thoracic spinal nerves T2 – T12.19. Resorts to logical fallacies including circular reasoning (begging the question), the ad hominen fallacy (name-calling), the either-or fallacy, and the strawman argument.20. Fabricates totally fictitious dialog between myself and her in a vain attempt to win the (strawman) argument. This has occurred at least twice.21. Doesn’t understand the difference between origins science and operations science.She cites examples of repeatable embryological development (neural innervation of the diaphragm) which is determined by pre-programmed genetic and epigenetic information that has nothing to do with origins science.22. Phylogenetics only shows nested hierarchies of biological characteristics. It depicts a simplistic view of the internal structure of living organisms and it fails to demonstrate evolution. An ancestor-descendant relationship could be imagined between a spoon, knife and fork but it fails to demonstrate how one of these supposedly evolved into another.23. Falsely accuses me of ‘quote mining’ when the only quote I included was one from evolutionist Franklin Harold in his book: ‘The Way of the Cell’.24. Commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The argument is in this form:

1. if p then q2. q3. therefore, p

and is fallacious. Although the truth of p ensures the truth of q, the reverse is not necessarily so, as the proposition q could be true even if p is false. So the argument is a fallacy. Here is one example:

1. If the earth was flat, we’d expect that the horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (if p then q)2. The horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (q)3. Therefore, the earth is flat. (therefore p)

The argument is fallacious. Here is Janis’ example:

1. If evolution were true, we’d expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)2. Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)3. Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)

The argument is fallacious because similar anatomical structures are predicted by intelligent design.

In summary, Janis’ response is just the typical evolutionist’s superficial story-telling about what she imagines happened in the past. Human body cells require an exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide for their metabolic needs. What totally irrational nonsense it is to believe that the cardiovascular system just happened to evolve to meet this metabolic need. When required to provide details about the evolution of the CV system, no attempt is made. The arguments used to show evolution is true could be used to show that anything is true.

Last edited by Frank on Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:29 am, edited 6 times in total.

The science of anatomy and physiology shows clearly that vertebrate evolution is impossible.

How? That is quite a sweeping statement please back it up with some detail please.

To explain the origin of the vertebrate cardiovascular system from an invertebrate, the basic requirements need to be specified. These include:

1. A complex closed network of vessels for transporting blood to the body cells.2. A pumping mechanism (heart) with valves for transporting oxygen-rich blood in a one-way direction throughout the body.3. A system for exchanging oxygen and carbon-dioxide (lungs/gills) functioning with the cardiovascular system.4. A filtration (renal) system to maintain acid/base and electrolyte balance and to eliminate excess water.5. Blood cells and plasma proteins.

You seem to be refering to a complex, evolved system. Please explain why all these need to be in place from the very start?

No evolutionary explanation exists as to how the single circulation cardiovascular system found in fish supposedly evolved. Also, no evolutionary explanation exists as to how the single circulation CV system of fish supposedly evolved into the double circulation CV system found in amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. The science of anatomy and physiology shows that vertebrate life is a top-down design, not a bottom-up design as evolutionists claim.

Now that would appear to be just an outright lie. I suggest you look a little harder, you won't need to look too hard and then come back and explain in detail what is wrong with the evolutionary explanations, diagrams, various organisms exhiting various stages in that evolution and so on.

May I suggest you look beyond ID websites as they are so often dishonest.

Frank wrote: The science of anatomy and physiology shows that vertebrate life is a top-down design, not a bottom-up design as evolutionists claim.

I take it that you are saying that your Intelligent Designer came up with a dual system and then decided that it was too specifically complex and scrapped it in favour of a simpler system for lower lifeforms. How did he/she/it do that - by degrading an already designed genome? A Backwards Designer?Or, shock horror, decided that the earlier system could be improved on in the same day as coming up with the original design? Not so much an Intelligent Designer as a Premature Prototyper.

For this forum I thought it was supposed to be: 'Science Only please!'

There is no science in your response. Instead your argument is something like: 'God would not have done it that way, therefore evolution must be true'. This is a logical fallacy and it is the type of argument someone needs to resort to when they have no answer. As I mentioned before, it is impossible to evolve a single circulation CV system, or a dual circulation CV system from a single circulation CV system. The single circulation CV system works fine to meet the metabolic needs of fish.

In response to my post: 'Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible.', any scientific response should include discussion of the supposed evolution of the heart (myocardium, ventricles, atria, heart valves, cardiac conduction), a closed system of blood vessels, a respiratory system, a renal system, a nervous system, blood cells, plasma proteins, etc. Because this is what is required for a functioning cardiovascular system. Evolutionary, bottom-up development is not possible for the cardiovascular system. That is what I am claiming.

For this forum I thought it was supposed to be: 'Science Only please!'

Indeed. However you introduced the supernaturalism of Intelligent Design. Which is unacceptable unless you first show that the designer is a natural organism such as "little green men".However, since we've both transgressed I'll turned a blind eye and let the topic run for a bit. Would you like to offer evidence for your hypothesis that a circulatory system suitable for fish is also suitable for mammals?EDIT: on closer reading, I see that you are not claiming that. Your underlying fallacy is that of Nonfunctional Intermediates which, of course, IDproponentsists use whenever they can. Perhaps you'll have a look at this outline account of circulatory evolution before we go any further.http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul06.htmlEDIT: or you might find the source of this similar but more detailed argument more acceptable: http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-3aAre you going to prove those evangelical Christians wrong?

I came across the article you refer to above about six months ago when I was researching this topic. The article is total nonsense and any thinking person who bothered to read it would be able to determine why. It refers to the development of a human from a single cell in the uterus where each step of the development of the embryo/fetus is pre-programmed. The embryo/fetus only survives in the protective environment of the uterus with the placenta, if it is removed from this environment it will die. Evolution is about populations surviving in the wild and undergoing reproduction. So this article does not even attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for the vertebrate cardiovascular system, and that is the topic of my post. In fact the argument in the article is so bad that most evolutionists don't even use it.

jon_12091 wrote:What about the core argument of ID, 'evolution can not explain this aspect of animal physiology, therefore there must be an intelligent designer'?

What about providing an explanation for the supposed evolutionary development of the vertebrate cardiovascular system? This is the topic of my original post.

Don't have too. If the hyothesis is "the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" then in the abscence of evidence that either demonstrates that, or the alternate, then the status quo prevails. And no even if you proved the evolution of the cardiovascular system impossible by the process of evolution as we understand it currently it would not 'prove' an intelligent designer. That requires a different set of questions, which coming back to my original comment, ID proponents seem unable to formulate, but then if you will attempt to build a scientific discpline on a PR strategy document you get what you deserve?

The development of soft tissue systems is always going to be tricky area due to lack of preservation in the fossil record or should we deduce that they didn't actually have any....

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis

I came across the article you refer to above about six months ago when I was researching this topic. The article is total nonsense and any thinking person who bothered to read it would be able to determine why. It refers to the development of a human from a single cell in the uterus where each step of the development of the embryo/fetus is pre-programmed.

Thank you for that polite vote of confidence! Without reading the article again, IIRC it was using embryos as an example of the range of possible functional circulatory systems and how the anatomical transition between them can take place. It showed that there are two, three and four-chambered hearts in living animals and that intermediate forms between them function as working hearts.

You might have studied human anatomy and physiology and read about animal anatomy and physiology but so what? Has any of that shown you that intermediate forms are impossible? Or are you refusing to believe in them until you can see them?Or are you asserting that although genes guide the formation of a four-chambered human heart (and by implication two and three-chambered hearts) genes cannot have existed that guided the formation of intermediate structures? If so, you are not using the structure of hearts to prove design, you are trying to use design to disprove evolution.